RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Spin is characterized as a misinterpretation of results that, whether deliberate or unintentional, culminates in misleading conclusions and steers readers toward an excessively optimistic perspective of the data. The primary objective of this systematic review was to estimate the prevalence and nature of spin within the traumatic brain injury (TBI) literature. Additionally, the identification of associated factors is intended to provide guidance for future research practices. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations were followed. A search of the MEDLINE/PubMed database was conducted to identify English-language articles published between January 1960 and July 2020. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that exclusively enrolled TBI patients, investigating various interventions, whether surgical or nonsurgical, and that were published in high-impact journals. Spin was defined as 1) a focus on statistically significant results not based on the primary outcome; 2) interpreting statistically nonsignificant results for a superiority analysis of the primary outcome; 3) claiming or emphasizing the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically nonsignificant results; 4) conclusion focused in the per-protocol or as-treated analysis instead of the intention-to-treat (ITT) results; 5) incorrect statistical analysis; or 6) republication of a significant secondary analysis without proper acknowledgment of the primary outcome analysis result. Primary outcomes were those explicitly reported as such in the published article. Studies without a clear primary outcome were excluded. The study characteristics were described using traditional descriptive statistics and an exploratory inferential analysis was performed to identify those associated with spin. The studies' risk of bias was evaluated by the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. RESULTS: A total of 150 RCTs were included and 22% (n = 33) had spin, most commonly spin types 1 and 3. The overall risk of bias (p < 0.001), a neurosurgery department member as the first author (p = 0.009), absence of a statistician among authors (p = 0.042), and smaller sample sizes (p = 0.033) were associated with spin. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of spin in the TBI literature is high, even at leading medical journals. Studies with higher risks of bias are more frequently associated with spin. Critical interpretation of results and authors' conclusions is advisable regardless of the study design and published journal.
RESUMO
COVID-19 laboratory diagnosis primarily relies on molecular tests, highly sensitive during early infection stages with high viral loads. As the disease progresses, sensitivity decreases, requiring antibody detection. Since the beginning of the pandemic, serological tests have been developed and made available in Brazil, but their diagnostic performance varies. This study evaluated the IBMP ELISA IgA/IgM/IgG COVID-19 kit performance in detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. A total of 90 samples, including 64 from COVID-19 patients and 26 pre-pandemic donors, were assessed based on time post symptom onset (0-7, 8-14, and 15-21 days). The kit showed 61% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 72% accuracy overall. Sensitivity varied with time, being 25%, 57%, and 96% for 0-7, 8-14, and 15-21 days, respectively. Similar variations were noted in other commercial tests. The Gold ELISA COVID-19 (IgG/IgM) had sensitivities of 31%, 71%, and 100%, while the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP ELISA (IgG) and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 NCP ELISA (IgM) showed varying sensitivities. The IBMP ELISA kit displayed high diagnostic capability, especially as the disease progressed, complementing COVID-19 diagnosis. Reproducibility assessment revealed minimal systematic and analytical errors. In conclusion, the IBMP ELISA IgA/IgM/IgG COVID-19 kit is a robust tool for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, increasing in efficacy over the disease course, and minimizing false negatives in RT-PCR COVID-19 diagnosis.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Early integration of pediatric palliative care (PPC) for children with cancer is critical to improving the quality of life of both the patient and family. Understanding physician perceptions of palliative care and perceived barriers to early integration is necessary to develop PPC in Brazil. METHODS: The Assessing Doctors' Attitudes on Palliative Treatment survey was modified for use in Brazil. The survey was open from January 2022 to June 2022 and distributed to physicians of all specialties from participating institutions who treat children with cancer. Statistical analysis was complemented by qualitative analysis of open-ended responses. RESULTS: A total of 272 respondents participated. Most respondents reported access to PPC experts for consultation (77.2%) and 34.5% indicated previous palliative care training. Physician knowledge of PPC was generally aligned with WHO guidance (median alignment, 93.0%; range, 80.5%-98.2%). However, about half (53.3%) felt comfortable addressing physical needs of patients receiving PPC, 35.3% addressing emotional needs, 25.8% addressing spiritual needs, and 33.5% addressing grief and bereavement needs. Most respondents (65.4%) felt palliative care should be involved from diagnosis, but only 10.3% stated that this occurred in their setting. The most important barriers identified were physician discomfort (89.0%), limited physician knowledge (88.6%), and lack of home-based services (83.8%). CONCLUSION: Despite a strong understanding of the role of palliative care, physicians in Brazil reported low confidence delivering PPC to children with cancer. Additionally, physicians generally believed that PPC should be integrated earlier in the disease trajectory of children with cancer. This work will direct educational and capacity building initiatives to ensure greater access to high-quality PPC for children with cancer in Brazil to address patient and family suffering.